UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. ANTONIO ZALDIVAR IGLESIAS, Defendant - Appellant. No. 22-6161 (D.C. No. 5:14-CR-00215-HE-1) (W.D. Okla.)

________________ _________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

________________ _________________ Before BACHARACH , KELLY , and MORITZ , Circuit Judges.

________________ _________________ Antonio Zaldivar Iglesias, an inmate appearing pro se , appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion for compassion ate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1). Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm. Background On June 6, 2014, Mr. Iglesias and anothe r individual robbed an Oklahoma bank while armed. During the armed robbery, Mr. Ig lesias discharged his firearm into the air

* After examining the briefs and appella te record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This orde r and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value cons istent with Fed. R. Ap p. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### March 28, 2023 Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court Appellate Case: 22-6161 Document: 010110833982 Date Filed: 03/28/2023 Page: 12 and pointed it at the bank mana ger several times. 2 R.12–13. On August 28, 2014, Mr. Iglesias pled guilty to knowingly using and discharg ing a firearm during a crime of violence in violation of 18 U. S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). 1 R. 22–44 , 47. The underlying crime of violence was armed bank robbery. Id. at 36. On January 21, 2015, the district court sentenced Mr. Iglesias to 153 months’ imprison ment and five years’ supervised release.
1 R. 48–49. In November 2021, Mr. Iglesias moved fo r compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Mr. Iglesias argued he was elig ible for compassionate release in light of his age (74 years), medical condition, and th e COVID-19 pandemic. Mr. Iglesias noted that he suffers from active depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, diabetes, hypothyroidism, high blood pressure, heart card iopatia, high cholesterol, tachycardia, and prostate problems. 1 R. 65. He argued these conditions, espe cially his diabetes and heart problems, placed him, according to the CDC, in the high-risk category should he contract
COVID-19. 1
The district court determin ed that while his age and medical conditions were “a potential concern,” Mr. Iglesias failed to es tablish extraordinary and compelling reasons for compassionate release because his cond ition was controlled by various medications, he was able to care for himself in prison with limited restrictions, and he was fully

1 In his reply before the district court, Mr. Iglesias raised entirely new arguments. He argued, like he does now on appeal, that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over his offense and that his statute of conviction—18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii)—is unconstitutionally vague in light of United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019). Appellate Case: 22-6161 Document: 010110833982 Date Filed: 03/28/2023 Page: 23 vaccinated against COVID-19 ther eby reducing the risk he faced. Moreover, the district court concluded that even if there was an extraordinary and compelling reason, consideration of the § 3553(a) factors made early release ina ppropriate given the severity of the underlying offense a nd his age when committing it. Mr. Iglesias committed his crime at the age of 67, and the district court not ed that his relatively advanced age is thus no indicator that he no longer posed a threat to the public. On appeal, Mr. Iglesias does not challenge the grounds upon which the district court denied his motion for compassionate rele ase but rather reiterates the arguments he made in his reply (“Defendant ’s Objections to Government ’s Opposition”) before the district court. Liberally construed, he ar gues that Section 403 of the First Step Act repealed his statute of convicti on. In turn, he argues this re peal voided the court’s subject matter jurisdiction, which renders his c ontinued imprisonment unconstitutional. Moreover, he argues his continued imprisonmen t constitutes an ex post facto violation. Aplt. Br. at 2–4. Lastly, citing Davis, he argu es his statute of conviction is void as it is unconstitutionally vague. Id. at 2. He also suggests that the court should hear oral argument in his case by a competent public defender.
Discussion We review a district court’s denial of a compassionate-release motion for abuse of discretion. United States v. Hemmelgarn, 15 F.4th 1027, 1031 (10th Cir. 2021) (citation omitted). “A district court abuses its disc retion when it relies on an incorrect conclusion of law or a clearly erroneous finding of fact .” United States v. Piper, 839 F.3d 1261, 1265 (10th Cir. 2016). Given Mr. Iglesias pr oceeds pro se, we liberally construe his Appellate Case: 22-6161 Document: 010110833982 Date Filed: 03/28/2023 Page: 34 filings but “do not act as his advocate.” United States v. Griffith, 928 F.3d 855, 864 n.1 (10th Cir. 2019). We do not consider the arguments Mr. Igle sias raises in his opening brief because they were not properly presented to the district court, having been raised for the first time in his reply brief. 2 See United States v. Sanchez, 446 F. App’x 149, 15 0 (10th Cir. 2011) (unpublished). To the extent that Mr. Iglesias challenges the district court’s denial of compassionate release, we fi nd no abuse of discre tion. The district court provided a reasoned explanation as to why consideration of the § 3553(a ) factors made early release inappropriate. We will not disturb a district court’s reasoned weighi ng of those factors. See United States v. Williams, 848 F. App’ x 810, 813 (10th Cir. 2021) (unpublished).
AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court
Paul J. Kelly, Jr. Circuit Judge

2 As recognized by the government, Mr. Ig lesias’ jurisdictional arguments concerning the effect that Section 403 of the First St ep Act and the Supreme Court’s decision in Davis have on his statute of co nviction — § 924(c) — are not colorable. See Aplee. Br. at 15–17. Appellate Case: 22-6161 Document: 010110833982 Date Filed: 03/28/2023 Page: 4